Since the 1990s, we have witnessed tremendous growth in performance-measurement activities in government. Legislative mandates have pushed most states to require state-funded entities to identify performance measures and report performance data in the budget process. Furthermore, measuring performance has become an important trend in public management practice. How have state science and technology (S&T) programs responded to these requirements and trends? This article extends prior work on performance measurement in state S&T programs. It presents data from a recent national survey of the directors of key S&T agencies in each of the 50 states. Findings reveal the struggles that these agencies face in the development of appropriate performance measures and their integration in the budget process. Details on appropriate measures, best measures, the measurement development process, and reporting techniques are provided. Strengths and weaknesses of existing measurement systems are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clarke, S. E.,& Gaile, G. L. (1992). The nextwave: Postfederal local economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 6(2), 187-199.
2.
Coburn, C. (1995). Partnerships: A compendium of state and federal cooperative technology programs. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press.
3.
Cozzens, S. (1997). The knowledge pool: Measurement challenges in evaluating fundamental research programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(1), 77-89.
4.
Cozzens, S., & Melkers, J. (1997). Use and usefulness of performance measurement in state science and technology programs. Policy Studies Journal, 25(3), 425-435.
5.
Eisenschitz, A. (1993). Business involvement in community: Counting the spoons or economic renewal? In D. Fasenfest (Ed.), Community economic development: Policy formation in the US and UK(pp. 141-156). London: Macmillan.
6.
Eisinger, P. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state: State and local economic development policy in the United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
7.
Eisinger, P. (1995). State economic development in the 1990’s: Politics and policy learning. In J. Blair & L. Reese (Eds.), Approaches to economic development(pp. 178-190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Fosler, R. S. (Ed.). (1988). The new economic role of American states: Strategies in a competitive world economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Godin, B. (2002). The emergence of S&T indicators: Why did government supplement statistics with indicators? Research Policy, 13(98), 1-13.
10.
Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
11.
Jankowski, J. (1999). What is the state government role in the R&Denterprise?(NSF No. 99-348). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies.
12.
Lee, R. D. (1992). The use of executive guidance in state budget preparation. Public Budgeting and Finance, 12(3), 19-31.
13.
Maine Public Law, 5 MRSA 13122-J and 13122-K (1999).
14.
Malecki, E. (1997). Technology and economic development: The dynamics of local, regional and national competitiveness (2nd ed.). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
15.
Mansfield, E. (1997). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26(7-8), 773-777.
16.
Melkers, J., & Cozzens, S. (1997). Use and usefulness of performance measurement in state science and technology programs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(2), 27-32.
17.
Melkers, J.,& Malone, L. (2002, October 11). Assessing the outcomes and performance of state economic development programs. Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management, Kansas City, MO.
18.
Melkers, J.,& Willoughby, K. G. (1997). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66-73.
19.
Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. G. (2001). Budgeters’ views of state performance-budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 54-64.
20.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330.
21.
National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Evaluating federal research programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Plosila, W. H. (2004). State science and technology-basedeconomic development policy: History, trends and developments, and future directions. Economic Development Quarterly, 18(2), 113-126.
23.
Rising deficits could doom science programs. (2003, March 21). Science, 299, p. 1826-1826.
24.
Rogers, J. D., & Bozeman, B. (2001). Knowledge value alliances: An alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(1), 23-55.
25.
Schmandt, J., and Wilson, R. H. (Eds.). (1990). Growth policy in the age of high technology: The role of regions and states. New York: Unwin Hyman.
26.
State Science and Technology Institute. (1996). State funding for cooperative technology programs. Columbus, OH: SSTI Press.
27.
State Science and Technology Institute. (1997). Science and technology strategic planning: Creating economic opportunity. Columbus, OH: SSTI Press.
